[MD] Essentialism and the MOQ

[Heather Perella]

     [Ham]
> In the interest of clarity, why not say: We
> intellectualize Being into
> Existence, since it is "beingness" that we
> experience.

     Why not experience Essence?  But that would not
be your thesis, Ham, to do so.  My perspective always
tends to 'Essence is Existence', and leave it at that.

     [Ham]
  This makes the term
> "whole of Existence" (i.e., whole of SQ) unnecessary
> and meaningless because
> it can't be experienced.

     I experience intellect, society, biology,
inorganic, all of these.  I know I defined these and
now know these for what they are staticly.  Yet, I
also know to use static (that term) doesn't help you
understand what I just said.


     [Ham]
> Incidentally, Laird put his finger on the
> epistemological difference between
> us when he used the "input" and "output" analogy. 
> Indeed, I do claim that
> Existence is the "output" of intellectual conception
> (cognizance).  The
> "input" is Value; but even that must be
> differentiated (by the five organic
> senses) before it is perceived.  This fact is
> intellectualized as the
> precept that beingness has light and color,
> geometric form, mass or texture,
> taste, smell, and sound.  Thus, particular objects
> (of being) are identified
> and experienced by some combination of these
> value-intellectualized
> attributes.

     Tree is tree, and tree is not just tree.

     [Ham] 
> The only aspect of Existence/existence still in
> question are the dimensional
> properties.  I say time and space define the mode of
> human experience.
> Laird says they're pre-intellectual, which doesn't
> really contradict what is
> a "mode of experience".  I would suggest that the
> brain and nervous system
> act as a kind of "filter" of the incoming Value,
> allowing us cognizance of
> only one phenomenon at a time (i.e., the present
> experience with its
> representative value attributes), and fixing the
> locus of this experience
> within a 3-dimensional spacial framework.

     yeah, ok

     [Ham] 
> Nothingness normally prevents all other Value from
> passing through this
> filtering system.  (Occasionally the filter "leaks",
> and we have psychics
> with some cognizance of future events or other
> paranormal experiences.)

     ok

     [Ham]
> But it's all geared (designed?) to convert the Value
> of Essence into a
> 'virtual reality'

     Ok, you can separate reality, but can you put it
together?  Thus, is reality separate and together, for
ya?

     [Ham]
 in which living and inorganic
> objects evolve or move in
> time and space within an orderly, self-sustaining 
> universe.

     aha

     [Ham]
> I have a suspicious feeling that we're about to see
> this epistemology
> translated into obtuse mathematical expressions and
> equations borrowed from
> quantum mechanics and neuro-physicists.  Permit me
> to remind you all that
> Science was developed to investigate and analyze the
> objective world.  The
> study of subjective consciousness, values, morality,
> esthetics, absolutes,
> essence, and nothingness remains the province of
> Philosophy.

      Unless, your a philosopher-scientist.


woods,
SA




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com